Updated version based on the latest round of feedback...
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-08.txt
- James
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2011-12-13 20:08, James Snell wrote:
>>
>> Yes, they are invalid. I need to point that out. They are equivalent
>> to the first but shouldn't ever be done.
>> ...
>
>
> Not sure that phrasing it this way is a good idea.
>
> If they are invalid, they can't be equivalent.
>
> If you want to make them equivalent, then you have to require recipients to
> process them.
>
> (my preference would be to leave them invalid)
>
> Best regards, Julian